dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to MURICA

Re: Ultra HD at CES

No offense, but your responses are somewhat elitist. Lowest common denominator? Can you possible be more insulting? In other words, what you're referring to is: the market. Without widespread acceptance of a product, it won't go anywhere. If there is no market, there is no product. Period. You think they're going to make uber-high-end TVs for a handful of people? Where's the money in that?

Next, if you sit 6" from your TV, yes you will see the pixels. So? Full immersion is about just that. If I sit in the front row of a movie theater, the picture looks blurry too. So what? The idea is that you become immersed at a normal viewing distance. In order to make 4k worthwhile, you need to have something that will benefit from that format. That means a super large TV. I don't know many homes that can handle a 100" TV. Given that, there is really no benefit of 4k over 1080p. If you sit 8' from your TV, then a 1080p TV in the 50 - 60" range will give you full immersion. Eventually 4k will probably catch on, but not until the prices come down. And until there's at least a modicum of acceptance, the prices won't come down. You need some base level of acceptance to drive down the price enough to create a market for a product. Otherwise, unless you're willing to plunk down $25k for a TV, you can forget about 4k.


MURICA

join:2013-01-03

said by JPL:

No offense, but your responses are somewhat elitist. Lowest common denominator?

Of course my responses are elitist. I am on a fiber optic forum discussing an emerging higher resolution television technology.

You are meant to sit close to smaller TVs like a 46". How exactly does one become 'immersed' when they are sitting ten feet away and their TV only takes up 10% of their field of view?

You aren't meant to sit 8 feet away in the 50-60" range.

said by aaronwt:

said by TitusTroy:

4K does not excite me as there will be little to no content for many years...you will just have a very expensive upscaler...the OLED sets on display at CES were jawdropping...forget 4K, I'll take 1080p with an OLED

But will OLED gain a foothold? If 4K errrr UltraHD sets gains a foothold first and starts dropping in price, it could wipe out any potential for OLED, no matter how much better it looks.

I would really like to see an OLED set in person.

All the 4K TVs are OLED.

If UltraHD gains a foothold, OLED gains a foothold alongside it.

said by Greg2600:

said by MURICA:

You want to know the fastest way to solve a bitrate crisis? Launch a new HD format like 4K which pushes these services to put out 20+ Mbps streams.

I wish it were that easy. Again, this kind of change requires a lot of money to be spent. The providers will not spend it. Just getting them to HD 1080i was a huge endeavor. Will you get UHD Blu-Rays and TV sets? Yes most likely. Doesn't cost them all that much to produce either. But you will not get UHD broadcast or cable television, not for years and years. 3D takes up twice the QAM than regular HD. There just won't be a ROI.

They already have a 4K channel broadcasting on European FTA satellite.

It can be done. The bandwidth is there. It's all about using it in an intelligent manner. It shouldn't cost that much to upgrade equipment to utilize the existing spectrum.


jawhip

@verizon.net

Not all the 4k sets are OLED. yes, Sony and Panasonic had 4k OLEDs but they were prototypes only. The 84" Sony 4K is an edge lite LED. IN fact, all of the current 4K sets that you can actually buy are. As for OLEDs, while it is the future, they will be expensive for the nest 3 years. personally, I wouldn't buy one now even if they were available. I would wait at least a year or even too so see how reliable they are in the field, how uniformily the phosphors age, etc.



Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

...
You are meant to sit close to smaller TVs like a 46". How exactly does one become 'immersed' when they are sitting ten feet away and their TV only takes up 10% of their field of view?

You aren't meant to sit 8 feet away in the 50-60" range.

...

LOL, so you'd sit less than 8 feet from a 46" display to watch TV. I sit close to my computer monitors as they are on my desk in front of me but in my living room and other places I have TVs I prefer not to stand in front of the set so I can be 'immersed.'

Yes, the ideal is to be 'closer' but we can't all fit 60+" displays in our rooms. Your logic basically says that all TVs that are less than 50" are pointless unless you live in a broom closet.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

They already have a 4K channel broadcasting on European FTA satellite.

It can be done. The bandwidth is there. It's all about using it in an intelligent manner. It shouldn't cost that much to upgrade equipment to utilize the existing spectrum.

They are called FTA for a reason, they are free! European television business is completely different than US. In the US, almost everything is pay to receive, where again, costs make a big difference. Their model will never be accepted here. I again refer FIOS. Verizon gave up touting the range of HD channels years ago now, when they stopped increasing their offerings. If the service with the most bandwidth barely does enough to give us HD offerings, and almost no 3D, how can we expect UHD? We cannot. Would I like to see everything in UHD in 5 years time? Yes. Do I expect it? No. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this, but the reason I am speaking so pessimistically is because I have reason to. I'm not going to get pumped up over a technology I likely won't experience for half a decade or longer.